Jim Wise writes:
The proposed standard fails to stay true to the spirit of what makes Scheme what it is. In essence, the standard fails to justify its own existence.
As a Scheme, the proposed language differs relatively little from R5RS, and where it does differ, the differences do not "feel" true to the history and spirit of Scheme to me in a way that even the more sweeping changes of R6RS did. I suspect both of these shortcomings stem from a desire to define R7RS scheme in opposition to R6RS, instead of as a natural evolution of the language's history.